Fuck Guns!!!

[garyb]

you're wrong about that.

the american people are not what the leadership does. we are just like you. americans are kicking and screaming against the current regime, but like any other dictatorship, they don't care...the news EVERYWHERE is owned by the same interest, so is EVERY government. it is a world wide system of banking and trade. the USA has been the seat of that trade and power for a while, but all of the important leaders and owners have moved to Dubai and China.

our prosperity was our industry, but now we just consume. we are fearful slaves who can see that the third world is soon to be us. many would just rather pretend like that wasn't so, but our power was not in our agressiveness(although being from a lineage of lowlifes and go getters who came to a "primitive land" far from ancestral homes to escape hell in eurpope and for the opportunity to establish fortune left us aggressive for sure) against others, but our independance. Americans are non-interferance oriented and isolationist by nature. it's been the big banking industries that encouraged ALL american military action overseas, history backs me up. even ww1 and ww2 were encouraged by the same banking and corporate insterests on BOTH sides of the wars. the USA used to feed the Soviet Union, now we pay farmers NOT to grow crops(actually these corporations have displaced nearly all the family farms). there is silver, gold, coal, and oil here. we don't even need the middle east's oil, the USA is sitting on top of OCEANS of it! the american people don't need to do anything to anyone to be prosperous, it's the perpetration of that LIE that makes it seem necessary for the current behavior and it covers the REAL perptrators.

the US military was signed over to the UN officiallyby Clinton during the Kosovo war that you're certainly familiar with. even before that, ALL of the major UN military actions have been US military actions. just think about that because according to US law, the connections with the UN and NATO are illegal. all of the 3 current candidates for US president are members of the CFR(a part of Chatham house, the Royal Institute for International Affairs) which was set up by and is funded by the Rockefellor family who are, according to David's own autobiogray, part of a cabal to establish a world government. the UN building sits in NYC on land which was donated by the family who was most influential in making the UN a reality, you guessed it, Rockefellor, the owner of Chase Manhattan, and Standard Oil of New York(Sony). there's much more detail that could be laid out, and it's all documented and really not a secret, but you have the spoonfed version of reality(no offense, i'm no better than you). if you investigate it's much stranger and more disturbing...like you find that these guys are like a cheap hollywood horror movie when it comes to corny ceremonies, suffice it to say that the UN property was once a huge slaughter house. in some circles land that had had that much blood spilled(they used to bless the killings in the slaughter house, Jews still do), was hallowed and sacred...

once again, George Washington:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

i'm not planning on shooting ANYone. if you can get rid of them ALL, fine. otherwise, i'll keep mine, thanks.

oh, and that "individualism" thing? just something that the Borg can't stand...

[siriusbliss]

It's the product of American extreme individualism mentality, and part of it is also an ideology that guns can protect you from anything. Now, had it been limited to U.S. i wouldn't mind, it's your choice, but you(American foreign policies, since more than 100 years) chose to spread this gospel world wide in order to keep the juice coming in. Face it Gary, it's not some abstract society, You- the U.S. government and U.S. citizens are the Overlords and you are busting the world with you actions and influence. Now you will have a billion dumbass Chinks to follow your example of blind consumerism and man eat man mentality, wanting all the things you have... the war is inevitable it seems. So yeah, grab your gun Gary and pray for the end is near, and stupidity will cause it.
Sorry for being blunt, i have nothing against you or any other participant in this thread.
Although i think you did call me a slave earlier on

Peace

INCORRECT.

We are not your overlords. Nor are we 'extreme individual mentality'

You guys are STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING that so-called 'American foreign policy' is NOT exclusively American as it is that of the globalist puppeteers pulling the strings.

Again, your supposed enemies are handed to you IN YOUR FACE so that you don't see the real evil running things. The same fuckers that run American 'foreign' (i.e. globalist) policy are the same fuckers that run most of the rest of the governments of the world, including Slovenia, Finland, or even Hawaii.

We are not exclusively individuals, but our Constitution (what's left of it) at least acknowledges the individual.

DO NOT EVER PRE-SUPPOSE THAT ALL AMERICANS SUPPORT US 'FOREIGN' (globalist) POLICY. This is NOT an accurate assumption - unless you buy into what's fed you in the media (in your face over and over again).

It's easy to point at the US foreign policy because THAT IS THE EVIL THAT IS CONSTANTLY THROWN IN YOUR FACE (and you buy it).

The real evil operates UNDER THE AUSPICES (cover/disguise) of American military and economic power.

Again, understand that your enemies are handed to you.

Believe me, I (and about 290mil other Americans) - and I presume Gary as well - DO NOT, nor EVER WILL support American foreign policy when it comes to attacking nations for oil (or whatever excuse), while calling it 'hitting them before they hit us' (to quote Boosh).

The organizations I support feed and cloth people, educate people, and promote music education. THAT is where I choose to put my tax dollars!

SO, when braincell says we should MEND the US - yes, that's what we are trying to do through education and positive action.

You can say 'fuck guns' all you want, but 25-30% of Finland have guns (and much more liberal gun laws), as does Switzerland at 27-32%.

So, now while everyone everywhere else sits back and cheers when the US next gets hit, you will know that there are a TON of Americans preparing to stop this, and to help stop ANY more stupid attacks on other countries and it's peoples'

Vindication will only work against you as well - because it 'feeds the wolf'.

Some more research:
http://www.guncite.com/journals/gun_con ... .html#h7.2

Greg

[braincell]

The issue seems to be freedom versus gun control.

I am not in favor of total freedom for everything. I agree with libertarians on some issues but not all. Gun ownership is not just a matter of personal freedom. One of the most basic human rights is the right to live which supersedes the right to own a gun. Most often, when used, guns are used for offense not defense and this is a fact. If you argue with this fact you just are not facing reality.

In a democracy, if the people decide to outlaw guns, that does not make it a dictatorship. I am confident, if if takes 100 years we will rid ourselves of legal guns as many more progressive nations have done.

[braincell]

Yes it is clear that most people don't own guns yet the gun lobby is strong. We were able at least to outlaw hunting in the cities which is a first step.

[garyb]

Most often, when used, guns are used for offense not defense and this is a fact. If you argue with this fact you just are not facing reality.

this is your opinion. only the military and criminals mainly use guns offensively, your personal experience none the less. most of the 200 MILLION guns in the US are NEVER used for offense. if any significant portion of those were, then you'd see some REAL mayhem.

actually, most guns shoot at paper targets and tin cans.


Stardust,
200 million guns is the reason the very worst hasn't happened in the world and the reason the world opinion is being manipulated to eliminate American guns. this is the real roadblock in the way of the final world scientific tyrranny that Aldous Huxley, H.G. Wells and Orwell, all important members of the intelligence world and servants to the Crown by occupation, spoke of. 10% of those weapons rebelling is a daunting number, as many of the police and military would join them. the guns are LITERALLY, the last bastion of freedom. they are even maintaining YOUR liberty. Euprope's liberty was won with the gun. the Magna Carta, the basis of European liberty was won at swordpoint. the name of the new Corporatism is Neo-fuedalism. that is where they wish to take us, and they don't want us to be able to struggle. they want to put the pillow over the face while we sleep off the barbituates.

guns are POWER. power is dangerous. the power belongs with the people, this is the foundation of America, no matter how abused and usurped that power may be today. fire is power. the masses are power.the human mind is power. power is dangerous. shall we ban the masses and ban human minds as well? Nazism is alive and well it seems...

individually, my first right is to life, as braincell pointed out. there ARE those who will bully and kill for what they want. the handgun changes all power relationships with such people. although some may claim otherwise, the fact is that one who looks to dominate, the predator is looking for the weak, not the sharp claw and tooth. murderers will murder. a gun gives a chance, all that can be asked for(it's not a gaurantee that everything won't go terribly wrong anyway).

as i said before, if guns were never invented and we were debating whether or not to invent them, i would have a very different argument. banning the commoner's weapons will only improve the predator's feeding grounds, make them safer, and the chief predator runs things.....

please don't come with those tired numbers claiming that people with guns are blah, blah, blah more likely to be shot and die blah, blah. there are 200 MILLION guns in the USA and that doesn't include the unreported, unregistered ones. actually, the incidence of accidental death or even death period, is rather low for such a dangerous tool, much lower than automobiles, alchohol and cigarettes.

[braincell]

Most often, when used, guns are used for offense not defense and this is a fact. If you argue with this fact you just are not facing reality.

I am referring to when they are used to thwart off an attack versus when they are used illegally.

Most hand guns are probably never used and thus are a total waste of money. They might make paranoids feel a little safer but they could achieve the same thing by taking some Prozac or lithium.

[siriusbliss]

Most often, when used, guns are used for offense not defense and this is a fact. If you argue with this fact you just are not facing reality.

I am referring to when they are used to thwart off an attack versus when they are used illegally.

Most hand guns are probably never used and thus are a total waste of money. They might make paranoids feel a little safer but they could achieve the same thing by taking some Prozac or lithium.

Sorry, but your view of reality is scewed by your idealism. Be careful to not intermix the two.

'legal' guns instantly thwart off 'illegal' use of guns. Handguns being the first portable line of defense in most cases.

You're comangling your idea of freedom with inherent rights and/or economics - which are not always necessaarily directly intertwined - including YOUR rights to protect yourself and your loved ones from unwarranted intrusion on your life.

It's all too easy to fog the mind with denial under the guise of drugs, but that's against what you yourself are saying.

It's a vicious cycle.

Too bad you guys view America like some old contrived movie. It's not real.


Greg

[braincell]

Considering how many guns there, are they don't seem to be a very effective deterrent. You are delusional.

[garyb]

if you think Prozac solves anything, YOU are delusional.

all of the big mass murders lately have been committed by people on Prozac. a couple of the side effects of long term use are hallucinations and suicidal thoughts.


Prozac, Paxil and the others are some of the worst medications ever devised and are much more dangerous than responsible, law abiding people owning guns.

[siriusbliss]

Considering how many guns there, are they don't seem to be a very effective deterrent. You are delusional.

round and round we go, and you still don't get it.
THE CRIMES STATISTICALLY OCCUR IN AREAS/REGIONS CALLED 'GUN FREE ZONES'.

I am fully aware of what's going on, and not delusional.

You will not change my mind, or my rights.

I don't even care what you think about guns anymore, because you are simply boxed in by your idealogical beliefs that overshadow reality.

Sorry...

Greg

[braincell]

Fine for now but when guns become illegal you will have to pick between your "rights" and your freedom to live outside of prison. Your rights are determined by the people and the court of law regardless of what you may think they are.

[siriusbliss]

Fine for now but when guns become illegal you will have to pick between your "rights" and your freedom to live outside of prison. Your rights are determined by the people and the court of law regardless of what you may think they are.

When individual rights (vs. privileges bestowed upon you at someone else's will) and freedom are taken away, then all of life will become a virtual prison. There will be no 'outside'. You just don't see that.

Guns are just guns.

You should probably go to Finland and check it out. Get a free education - including on how they view guns and private rights.. It's a 'progressive' oligarchy (disguised as a democracy) with great bike trails, fairly green environmental laws, and good beer.

However, there are flaws in centralized education, centralized healthcare, and even they are now reaching out to the EU for more support. And approximately 30% of the population have guns.

Friends in Germany and Canada have problems with delays and quality of service with their so-called national healthcare system.

Government is not the answer, YOU are the answer. Getting rid of guns is not the answer. KEEPING your individual rights IS the first step to keeping your freedom - so sitting back BELIEVING and buying into the idea that 'when guns become illegal you will have to pick between your "rights" and your freedom to live outside of prison' is part of the brainwash. IF you believe that's what you see happening, then don't get suckered into sitting by and watching or waiting for it to happen - just because you THINK guns are the problem.

This is a very narrow view IMO.

Guns are not the problem. Brainwashed, stoned, fearful, desperate, ignorant people suckered into a disfunctional system have become the problem, as more and more personal power is given away to illusion of government/corporate power and greed.

Greg

[alfonso]

Once a while I'm tempted to bring the debate on a much simpler and less philosophical question. I don't see really the alternatives being between the full, uncontrolled ability for anyone to own a gun and the total ban of private gun ownership, also because this is not the real difference between the U.S. and Europe. What I would like to know if it wouldn't be considered more reasonable a system which allows to own guns with some exceptions, the same ones that without anyone yelling against "loss of freedom" regulate the ability to have driving licenses and a public record of gun ownership, plus the total ban for people who have been definitively condemned for crimes..

Regarding the argument that criminals would own guns anyway, gotten from the clandestine market, that's true, but the fact that the simple ownership for them is a crime gives an enormous power to the law to convict them and put them under control, if just found with a gun, thus preventing more crimes. It's never a mistake to make life less easy to them.

To be clear, I live in Europe, and if I feel that I want a gun I can, I just have to make an official request and if I'm not a criminal or a mentally ill person, I'll get the permission. And believe me, the fact that I know that these limitations exist make my life so much better. Is this lack of freedom or a more responsible way to organize a society?

[garyb]

Once a while I'm tempted to bring the debate on a much simpler and less philosophical question. I don't see really the alternatives being between the full, uncontrolled ability for anyone to own a gun and the total ban of private gun ownership, also because this is not the real difference between the U.S. and Europe. What I would like to know if it wouldn't be considered more reasonable a system which allows to own guns with some exceptions, the same ones that without anyone yelling against "loss of freedom" regulate the ability to have driving licenses and a public record of gun ownership, plus the total ban for people who have been definitively condemned for crimes..

Regarding the argument that criminals would own guns anyway, gotten from the clandestine market, that's true, but the fact that the simple ownership for them is a crime gives an enormous power to the law to convict them and put them under control, if just found with a gun, thus preventing more crimes. It's never a mistake to make life less easy to them.

To be clear, I live in Europe, and if I feel that I want a gun I can, I just have to make an official request and if I'm not a criminal or a mentally ill person, I'll get the permission. And believe me, the fact that I know that these limitations exist make my life so much better. Is this lack of freedom or a more responsible way to organize a society?

criminals are already committing crime! the laws do not affect them, since they know that jail or worse is inevitasble anyway.....

as always, incrimentalism applies. the corrupt will just refuse to issue licenses. Orange County, CA is famous for having a Sherriff who only grants carry permits to friends and cronies.

but of course, i've been saying those things the whole time! there's nothing wrong with responsible people owning guns, and people have the right to defend themselves. if you can do that, i'm glad for you because it indicates at least some respect for the population by those in power. perhaps ownership is easy, but perhaps carrying it is more difficult than you imagine if you're not rich, famous or a licensed bodyguard or officer...when the government stops allowing arms and even begins to collect them, it indicates the beginning of despotism. naturally, guns are not for the mentally unstable or naive any more than thongs are for 6 year old girls or automobiles are for the extremely simple-minded.....

[alfonso]

1)criminals are already committing crime! the laws do not affect them, since they know that jail or worse is inevitasble anyway.....

2)as always, incrimentalism applies. the corrupt will just refuse to issue licenses. Orange County, CA is famous for having a Sherriff who only grants carry permits to friends and cronies.

3)....naturally, guns are not for the mentally unstable or naive any more than thongs are for 6 year old girls or automobiles are for the extremely simple-minded.....

1) yes, but if they are found, say, by street patrol, with some guns, or if those are found at their home, they can be put to prison before they use them...it happens a lot here, the crime is called "illegal arm detention". It is for sure the possibility to do something before they are used.

2) I think we have in Italy a great law, quite recent, that fixates a very democratic principle and it's a strong weapon against corruption. It says that any citizen who ask for a permission, which only can be denied with a juridically founded motivation, has the right to receive a formal answer (thus exposing the office to the very heavy imputation of "power abuse" in case of a wrong motivation) in a certain maximum time, usually a month. If the office doesn't answer formally, that is the same thing as it would have answered "Yes", the permission is automatically given. Juridically sleek, elegant and effective.

3) I was sure that with a rational way of approaching issues it's easier that people agree....general principles are...well...general, they cannot be debated too much because if people embrace them that means they have a deep psychological foundation. But they are useful only if they are considered what they are, abstractions, fundamental, indispensable, but abstractions. So putting against each other two equally important principles, like freedom and organization, is foolish. They both have to be taken in account to get an optimal result in the real life, which is relative and not absolute, because many are the points of view and different are the interests. Does it sound difficult? Yes, it is, life is difficult for all the species, but not because something is difficult that means that it can't be achieved.

[siriusbliss]

Once a while I'm tempted to bring the debate on a much simpler and less philosophical question. I don't see really the alternatives being between the full, uncontrolled ability for anyone to own a gun and the total ban of private gun ownership, also because this is not the real difference between the U.S. and Europe. What I would like to know if it wouldn't be considered more reasonable a system which allows to own guns with some exceptions, the same ones that without anyone yelling against "loss of freedom" regulate the ability to have driving licenses and a public record of gun ownership, plus the total ban for people who have been definitively condemned for crimes..

Regarding the argument that criminals would own guns anyway, gotten from the clandestine market, that's true, but the fact that the simple ownership for them is a crime gives an enormous power to the law to convict them and put them under control, if just found with a gun, thus preventing more crimes. It's never a mistake to make life less easy to them.

To be clear, I live in Europe, and if I feel that I want a gun I can, I just have to make an official request and if I'm not a criminal or a mentally ill person, I'll get the permission. And believe me, the fact that I know that these limitations exist make my life so much better. Is this lack of freedom or a more responsible way to organize a society?

criminals are already committing crime! the laws do not affect them, since they know that jail or worse is inevitasble anyway.....

as always, incrimentalism applies. the corrupt will just refuse to issue licenses. Orange County, CA is famous for having a Sherriff who only grants carry permits to friends and cronies.

but of course, i've been saying those things the whole time! there's nothing wrong with responsible people owning guns, and people have the right to defend themselves. if you can do that, i'm glad for you because it indicates at least some respect for the population by those in power. perhaps ownership is easy, but perhaps carrying it is more difficult than you imagine if you're not rich, famous or a licensed bodyguard or officer...when the government stops allowing arms and even begins to collect them, it indicates the beginning of despotism. naturally, guns are not for the mentally unstable or naive any more than thongs are for 6 year old girls or automobiles are for the extremely simple-minded.....

Yeah, current California law is - when you buy a gun, you have to register it, and there is a 10-day background check before you even take possession. THEN you're on some list somewhere at the Sherriff's, Fed's, etc. where they can simply come and try to take it (and you) away for possession in times of 'disruption' - such as what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina where people who owned guns to protect themselves were ORDERED to hand them over to 'authorities'.

Greg

[garyb]

Alfonso, on point number 2...

that is a very good law it seems, nice for you! as long as the government respects it's position as public servant/admisinstrator these things work well. the moment those with a lust for power manage to take reigns, these laws become useless. this is the situation in the USA, not everywhere, but.......

[braincell]

[
Yeah, current California law is - when you buy a gun, you have to register it, and there is a 10-day background check before you even take possession. THEN you're on some list somewhere at the Sherriff's, Fed's, etc. where they can simply come and try to take it (and you) away for possession in times of 'disruption' - such as what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina where people who owned guns to protect themselves were ORDERED to hand them over to 'authorities'.

Greg

Gun happy Virginia has a similar background check. This guy passed a background check, then he killed 33 people at Virginia Tech. Sorry but the background check is practically useless. This part is hilarious:

"they can simply come and try to take it (and you) away "

Too late when someone is dead!

[alfonso]

the moment those with a lust for power manage to take reigns, these laws become useless. this is the situation in the USA, not everywhere, but.......

I'm more keen to think that the contemporary ways of domination of the power elites on the masses are totally different from those that could be contrasted with guns....basically because the best allies are the common people themselves, with their lust for power on a smaller level, their greediness and the fear that turns them to isolated individuals surrounded by potential enemies. Things have evolved a bit from the Mayflower era.....domination is more subtle and clever. The only ways to contrast it are awareness and democratic participation, because it's the distance between the form and the substance of democracy that defines the contemporary domination. If you don't participate you make the elites happier, that's exactly what they hope, because they are obliged to put up a system which is formally democratic, but they hope so much that the only votes and voices are from the same "anthropology" they belong to. If you stay at home and feel powerful because you can shoot a can from 20 meters they are happy to make you think so.

To summarize: No problems for me with a legal and fairly controlled ownership of a weapon, it's saying that it's enough to defend freedom that I find extremely dangerous and calling for disasters .

[garyb]

i won't argue any of that.

still, independance must be maintained, even in a world of interdependance.

don't forget, power is dangerous and all power is with the people.